There's a good reason why several dozen environmental groups support
one narrow exemption to California's offshore oil-drilling ban.

It's not clear whether Santa Barbara actually is "the birthplace of
the environmental movement," but by now it surely must be, given how
many times it has been said. This assertion rests on the long infamous
oil blowout of 1969 — whose 40th birthday we just
celebrated — where three million gallons of crude bubbled
up from beneath Union Oil's Platform A, located six miles off the coast
of Carpinteria. In the process, miles of South Coast beaches were
tarred by silent, oil-soaked waves, and thousands of marine birds died.
Ultimately, Union Oil was found at fault, many lawsuits were filed, and
many more laws were passed. Both Congress and the president enacted
moratoriums on any new oil development off our coast, though both were
lifted late last year. Since then, Santa Barbara has become known
across the globe as the iconic victim of Big Oil. The region's
reputation as a vestal virgin forever saying no to the blandishments of
the oil industry lies at the heart of an epic rift with ramifications
for the future of offshore oil development in California.

At issue is a historic accord that two environmental groups reached
this past April with the oil company Plains Exploration &
Production. PXP owns Platform Irene, located in federal waters a little
more than three miles off the coast of Vandenberg Air Force Base north
of Santa Barbara. PXP wants to dip its straw off Irene and into
adjoining state waters — the state controls
everything from the shore to the three-mile
limit — and suck down the rich oil reserves located
in an underwater locale known as Tranquillon Ridge. This is a very big
deal. No new oil permits have been issued in California waters during
the last forty years. Environmental Defense Center attorney Linda Krop,
along with the group Get Oil Out! and the Citizens Planning
Association, has been chasing away oil companies from Tranquillon Ridge
since 1999. When PXP approached John Garamendi, head of the State Lands
Commission — which has the first and last word on oil development
in state waters — he told them to go make Krop
happy. So that's what they did.

Toward that end, PXP agreed to stop drilling at Platform Irene by
2022. Up to now, no oil company had ever agreed to any end date of any
kind. So that was huge. In addition, PXP agreed to remove three other
oil platforms located in federal waters in 2017, as well as two onshore
oil processing plants. Without this infrastructure in place, Krop
argued that other oil companies will be less interested should the
feds — always hungry for oil
revenues — promote further oil development in our
federal waters.

Beyond that, PXP agreed to offset all its greenhouse gas emissions,
give Santa Barbara County $1.5 million to buy a new fleet of clean-air
buses, and donate 3,900 acres of land to the Trust for Public Land.
That doesn't count the $2 billion-$5 billion in royalties the state
stands to collect, or the $100 million PXP would pay the state up
front.

Initially, the only grousing came from two oil companies that had
competing plans for the same oil fields. But in late January, Krop
found herself caught completely flat-footed by Assemblyman Pedro
Nava — now running to succeed Jerry Brown as
California's attorney general — who got the eleven
members of the Coastal Caucus to sign a letter expressing grave
concerns that the PXP project set a dangerous precedent and was legally
unenforceable. Eight members of a parallel Senate committee submitted a
letter of identical concerns. Nava's wife, Susan Jordan — a
formidable eco-warrior in her own right who is running to fill the
Assembly vacancy being created by her
husband — also weighed in with concerns about the
deal, as did California Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan, an ocean
defender proud to be despised by every developer in the state. Adding
to Krop's vexation, the State Lands Commission staff has recommended
denial of the PXP proposal on many of the same grounds.
Garamendi — who midwifed the deal by telling PXP to
make Krop happy — is also opposed.

Their underlying concern is that if the "birthplace of the
environmental movement" says yes to any oil development, it risks
opening the flood gates. Nava said that Sacramento Republicans are
saying that if oil development is okay in Santa Barbara, it's okay
anywhere off the coast. When the deal was first announced, Nava noted
that The Wall Street Journal used the occasion to proclaim that
even Santa Barbara environmentalists now agree that oil drilling is
safe. Given Santa Barbara's unique history, it has become the line in
the sand that no one can cross. Not even itself.

Krop has battled the oil industry for decades. So when she says the
deal sets no precedent — because PXP is the only operator in all
of California to qualify for one of two exceedingly narrow exemptions
allowed to the state ban on new offshore oil development — I tend
to believe her. When attorneys for the State Lands Commission question
whether the contract is enforceable, that gives me pause. But I'd still
put my money behind Krop. So, it seems, have Congresswoman Lois Capps,
the Sierra Club, GOO, CPA, and an alphabet-soup of 25 other
environmental groups that back the deal. I'm not saying Nava and Jordan
haven't raised significant questions. But if the deal dies, we know for
certain that the four platforms will stay put indefinitely, the two
processing plants will never go away, and the 3,900 acres won't get
donated. For me, it's a calculated gamble. If the deal is approved, and
Nava and Jordan are proven correct, the worst case is that we're right
where we started. But if they're wrong and the deal dies, then we lose
a historic opportunity. Obviously, there are no guarantees when playing
craps or negotiating with oil companies. But sometimes you just have to
roll the dice. Oh, and by the way, happy 40th anniversary.

Contact the author of this piece, send a letter to the editor, like us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.